“Paul Josephson has been one of New Jersey’s top pot lawyers for a very long time. The longtime policy and regulatory counsel for New Jersey Cannabis Industry Association, Mr. Josephson leads the Cannabis Industry Group at Duane Morris, an international law firm with strong roots in New Jersey…”
Read the full article on InsiderNJ.com:
Tribal leaders of federally-recognized tribes that have legalized cannabis, either medicinally or for adult use, may soon be able to breathe a sigh of relief. The Fiscal Year 2023 appropriations bill for the Department of the Interior (the “2023 Appropriations Bill”), awaiting Senate approval after having passed the House, includes a provision prohibiting the use of any Interior funds to enforce federal laws that otherwise criminalize cannabis on Indian lands where tribal law authorizes its use, distribution, possession, or cultivation. There are, however, two important caveats.
First, if the tribe is subject to state law that is contrary to tribal law, or the tribal land is located in a state where cannabis is illegal, the non-enforcement provision does not apply. Some tribes are still subject to Public Law 280, a relic from the 1950s, which gives certain states criminal jurisdiction over tribal members on tribal land. For those tribes, state criminal law would control and cannabis use, distribution, possession, or cultivation would remain illegal on tribal land.
Second, tribes must take reasonable steps to ensure tribal laws regarding cannabis are compatible with certain federal policy objectives, such as prohibiting cannabis use for minors and ensuring cannabis is not diverted to states or tribes where it is illegal, used to support organized crime or other illicit drugs, or brought onto federal public lands.
These policy objectives mirror ones that had been included in the “Wilkinson Memo,” a 2014 Obama-era statement of policy emphasizing the Department of Justice’s non-enforcement policy against tribes for legal cannabis businesses (both medicinal and adult-use). That memo gave tribes and tribal members some comfort that legalization efforts would not subject them to prosecution, or prevent federal funds from continuing to support their communities. When Attorney General Sessions rescinded that policy statement in 2017, tribal legalization was left in political limbo. The Biden administration has remained silent on the issue of tribal legalization, despite President Biden’s pardon announcement earlier this month.
If the Senate approves the 2023 Appropriations Bill, it will give tribes that have already legalized cannabis some much-needed clarity on where the federal government stands on enforcement of the federal Controlled Substances Act. During the Obama administration, tribes in states like Washington and Nevada found success in compacting with the state to create a uniform system of distribution. Tribes in California do not have that option as the state has prevented any such partnership, despite the state and tribes separately legalizing adult-use. More recently, some tribes located in New York went ahead without state partnership while state adult-use licenses linger in the approval process. Indeed, more than 100 dispensaries have opened in New York on Native land.
For tribes in states where cannabis remains prohibited in some or all forms, or the state has criminal jurisdiction over tribal members, the 2023 Appropriations Bill is a reminder that the complex system of federal and state law governing tribal affairs continues to create issues affecting tribal sovereignty.
Cannabis products – such as vapes, pre-rolled joints, tinctures, gummies, and beverages – are consumer packaged goods that are required under state law to be marketed with packaging and labeling that demonstrates their safety to consumers. Although the U.S. state-licensed cannabis industry has been one of the fastest-growing industries in the U.S. over the past decade, consumer fraud lawsuits arising out of alleged packaging and labeling problems, which are a common risk for CPG manufacturers in other industries, have, until now, not been a major consideration for the cannabis supply chain. However, that is changing. As three recent lawsuits suggest, consumer fraud class actions may be on the rise in the industry. Given the media attention cases like these attract, and the potential for damages for thousands or millions of potential consumers, the cannabis supply chain should take notice. As we discuss in the full text of this post, this is going to be especially true once cannabis products are permitted to be sold interstate.
To read the full text of this post by Duane Morris partners Seth Goldberg, Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., and Jennifer A. Riley, please visit the Duane Morris Class Action Defense Blog.
By Jennifer Kearns and Danielle Dwyer
Starting January 1, 2024, employers in California will be prohibited from interfering with their employees’ off-duty use of marijuana. On September 18, 2022, Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law Assembly Bill 2188 (AB 2188), which amends California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) to add protections for employees by prohibiting employers from refusing to hire, firing, or otherwise taking an adverse action against an employee based on the employee’s “use of cannabis off the job and away from the workplace.” Although medicinal marijuana has been legal in California since 1996, and recreational marijuana legal since 2016, the FEHA did not previously provide workplace protections for employees’ permissive use of marijuana.
AB 2188 also amends the FEHA to prohibit discrimination in hiring or any term or condition of employment based on employer-required drug screening tests that detect “nonpsychoactive cannabis metabolites” in the employee’s “hair, blood, urine, or other bodily fluids.” The California legislature stated that because most marijuana tests can only detect whether cannabis metabolites are present, and have “no correlation to impairment on the job,” employers will need to instead rely on alternative tests to determine whether an employee is under the influence at work. These alternative tests can include “impairment tests” that “measure an individual employee against their own baseline performance,” or tests that “identify the presence of THC in an individual’s bodily fluids.”
Although the law does not specify what constitutes an “impairment test,” it is possible the legislature was referencing tests that measure an individual’s motor functions, the visual effects of being high, and/or obvious cognitive impairments such as impaired gait or mobility, glassy eyes, changes in speech, and/or reasoning ability. However, at this time, there is no universal definition, legally or medically, of what constitutes “impairment.” Employers wishing to utilize impairment tests should develop a protocol that identifies the signs of impairment that will be assessed and that includes training supervisors on recognizing and documenting signs of impairment.
It is also not immediately clear upon which bodily fluid tests employers can rely given that THC can remain detectable in a person’s system weeks after use and such tests might not be able to provide objective data as to whether an employee is impaired at a specific time. The intent of AB 2188 is to protect an employee’s off-duty use, so if an employee partakes on a Saturday and fails a drug test on a Wednesday, but is not impaired on Wednesday, taking action against that employee would be discriminatory and unlawful. Employers that rely on physical drugs should consider incorporating impairment tests into their drug testing procedures. A two-fold approach may better protect an employer from liability under AB 2188. Employers should also confirm with their drug testing providers that the provider tests for the presence of THC and not nonpsychoactive cannabis metabolites.
Importantly, AB 2188 does allow employers to prohibit marijuana use on the job and/or at the worksite and specifically states that there is a “consensus” that employees “should not arrive at a worksite high or impaired.” Employers would also still be permitted to maintain drug-free workplaces and prohibit the possession of marijuana at the workplace. The bill exempts employees “in the building and construction trades,” and positions which require federal drug tests and/or background tests.
With the amendments to the FEHA, California joins a growing list of states that have enacted employee protections for the recreational use of marijuana including Connecticut, Illinois, Montana, New Jersey, New York, and Rhode Island.
As we previously reported, on October 6, President Biden took executive action and announced that he would issue pardons for all prior Federal offenses of simple possession of marijuana, and urged state governors to do the same. As part of his executive action, Biden also directed the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Attorney General to “initiate the administrative process to review expeditiously how marijuana is scheduled under federal law,” which is currently classified as a Schedule I drug, along with heroin and LSD.
Many observers think that this executive action could usher in cannabis banking reforms. While some have noted that if cannabis is actually de-scheduled, banks and financial institutions will feel more comfortable banking with cannabis and cannabis-related companies, it seems more likely that Biden’s pardon announcement may push Congress to finally pass some version of the SAFE Banking Act.
After Biden’s announcement, Sen. Cory Booker (D, N.J.) said he was hopeful that Congress would pass federal legislation in the lame-duck session after the November election. On that front, Booker alluded to “bipartisan movement” due to “problems in the banking industry” that many think refers to a version of “SAFE Banking Plus” or “SAFE Plus” that we previously reported senators were discussing.
The SAFE Banking Act – which has passed the House of Representatives seven times in recent years but has not been taken up in the Senate – would allow cannabis businesses to access the federal banking system and service providers to the cannabis industry such as attorneys, accountants, bankers and landlords would be permitted to accept payment from cannabis businesses without the risk of violating federal law.
“SAFE Plus” would add equity provisions to the SAFE Banking Act, ensuring equitable access to financial services for minority-owned cannabis businesses, requiring financial institutions to prove compliance with anti-discrimination laws, as well as other reforms like expungements, veterans medical cannabis access and more.
On October 6, 2022, President Biden issued perhaps the
biggest shift in federal policy on cannabis since enactment of
the Controlled Substances Act, issuing a Statement on Marijuana Reform that:
– Pardons all prior federal offenses of simple possession or use of
marijuana;
– Urges all Governors to pardon all prior state offenses of simple
possession or use of marijuana; and
– Requests that the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the
Attorney General initiate an administrative review of marijuana’s
scheduling under the CSA.
This unexpected but welcome shift in Administration policy led to the usual bump in prices of publicly-traded cannabis companies, as investors seized on any legalization news as good news.
But this may well be one of those be careful what you wish for moments.
Many commenters presume this move presages the federal legalization of cannabis. But astute observers understand that the devil is in the details when it comes to so-called federal legalization – and that there are many shades of legalization with very different outcomes for the current industry, legacy operators, and the various noncannabis industries waiting for a break in federal policy that will allow them to enter the cannabis space.
Notably, President Biden did not instruct his agencies to deschedule or even to reschedule cannabis. Instead, he “ask[ed]” HHS and DOJ “to initiate the administrative process to review expeditiously how marijuana is scheduled under federal law.”
The President noted that “… even as federal and state regulation of marijuana changes, important limitations on trafficking, marketing, and under-age sales should stay in place.” Reading the statement closely, it would seem that descheduling is an unlikely result, unless done in tandem with federal legislation creating a federal regulatory regime or authorizing states to regulate the business.
And rescheduling is not necessarily good news for the industry, either. Rescheduling could result in FDA regulation of products that would all but require cannabis companies to operate like pharmaceutical companies.
If cannabis is descheduled or rescheduled, existing state regulatory schemes that feature or include local protectionist measures would likely fall as substantial burden on interstate commerce. The only sure way to preserve existing state-based markets will be an act of Congress authorizing the states to continue to discriminate in favor of local operators and local cultivation.
The big questions following this Statement:
– Will DEA/DOJ/HHS drag their feet yet again?
– Will marijuana be declassified altogether?
– Will it be re-classified as a Schedule II, III, IV, or V controlled substance?
– Will it remain a Schedule I controlled substance?
Any of these outcomes are possible. And where you stand on this review very much depends on where you sit.
Today, President Biden took executive action and pardoned those convicted of simple possession of marijuana under the federal Controlled Substances Act, and encouraged state governors to issue similar pardons to those convicted of simple marijuana possession under their state’s laws. In issuing the pardon, President Biden explained: “Criminal records for marijuana possession have also imposed needless barriers to employment, housing, and educational opportunities. And while white and Black and brown people use marijuana at similar rates, Black and brown people have been arrested, prosecuted, and convicted at disproportionate rates.” He also asks the Secretary of Health “to initiate the administrative process to review expeditiously how marijuana is scheduled under federal law,” noting that marijuana is scheduled higher than fentanyl and methamphetamine. The executive action could mark the real beginning of the ending of the federal prohibition on marijuana. As President Biden stated, “Too many lives have been upended because of our failed approach to marijuana. It’s time that we right these wrongs.”
A few years ago, a trend began to emerge — driven by the anti-cannabis lobby — of civil claims being asserted against state-licensed cannabis operators under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
The suits were brought in an attempt to curtail operators’ state-legal cannabis activities based on the allegation that such activities violated the federal Controlled Substances Act and thereby satisfied the predicate act requirement under RICO.
In all such cannabis-related RICO cases, the plaintiffs’ bid for a civil judgment failed, and the trend of civil RICO claims against cannabis operators seemed to vanish as quickly as it appeared.
Recently, a putative class action, Plumlee v. Steep Hill Inc., was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas against four state-licensed cannabis operators, asserting civil RICO claims arising out of allegations that the operators falsified the amount of THC in their cannabis products.
To read the full text of this article by Duane Morris attorneys Ethan Feldman and Seth Goldberg, please visit the firm website.
On September 9, 2022, the New Jersey Cannabis Regulatory Commission issued interim guidance for employers on drug testing employees for cannabis. Since the legalization of recreational marijuana for adults 21 years of age or older, New Jersey employers are expected to follow certain procedures associated with drug testing employees based on reasonable suspicion of impairment. Until specific regulations are issued, the commission has provided interim guidance to clear some of the haze for employers trying to navigate compliance with New Jersey’s cannabis law.
To read the full text of this Duane Morris Alert, please visit the firm website.
A Maine law requiring all owners of medical marijuana businesses to be residents of the state was recently struck down by the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, which ruled that the statute is a violation of the “Dormant Commerce Clause” of the United States Constitution, which prohibits states from passing legislation that restricts interstate trade. In its opinion (Northeast Patients Group et al. v. United Cannabis Patients and Caregivers of Maine, the Appellate Court upheld a lower court ruling that the residency requirement is an unconstitutional restriction on interstate trade.
Under the Maine’s medical marijuana program, all directors or officers of a licensed medical cannabis dispensary are required to be residents of the state. Interestingly, Maine had already dropped its residency requirement for its adult-use market following an earlier legal challenge that was also based on the Dormant Commerce Clause but it sought to keep it in place for its medical cannabis program.
This could be a problem for NY’s new adult use cannabis program, as of the requirements is that the potential licensees must have been arrested (or are related to someone who was arrested) for a marijuana related crime in New York and must also have been a New York resident at the time of the arrest. This could like be deemed a residency requirement and thus lead to challenges not only to any individual licenses grants but the entire CAURD program.
Equally or possibly even more problematic is the fact that this ruling could also open the door to legal challenges to a variety of other State laws banning the exporting or importing of cannabis from other states, as the same rationale invalidating the residency requirements could come, as disallowing cannabis exports and imports between states could be construed as similarly placing unreasonable restrictions on interstate commerce.
